Pentax Ricoh future

This feature was introduced on the K-01. Not having a 50mm f1.2 lens I can't comment on how it would affect the focusing problems, but every mention of this beast of a lens always makes me wistfully think I'd quite like one.

Unfortunately I can't find a convincing end to the sentence: "Sue, I really will have to get a 50mm f1.2 lens because....."

the Joneses have one

there you go good argument in my opinion

John can't buy one..... because he would have to buy
a Canon focusing screen to use with it

.... when Pentax introduce a FF sensor (with new matched AF module a-la 1.7TC), the price of old FF glass will triple. Best get it now while they are so reasonable......darling.

You would though, wouldn't you. A new AF TC allowing a small degree of AF to pop on your old glass, rough focus with the lens then TC does the rest. Maybe one with a tele factor ranging from 0.9 to 1.4 pre-selectable, £400.

hee hee


I still haven't bought a couple of Canon focussing screens.

Who cares?

Frankly, I'm not sure why you're still here. Coming along as a Nikon user and posting negative comments about Pentax is really pretty pointless.

G

Come/Come Mr Lazarette
Remember yur a Pentx Pro Master.

Never the mind the personalities Gentlemen, let's return to the subject please.

As a relative newcomer to photography and DSLRs (I learnt the basics years ago on a Fuji fixed lens SLR-like S2000) I was becoming disillusioned with Pentax after the Ricoh merger, lack of new models and the apparent focus on the 'designer' K-01. I was starting to think my (albeit modest) investment in Pentax lenses was a mistake - a mistake many Canon/Nikon users had warned me about during my initial research into Pentax.

However, now I see new models on the horizon I know I have nothing to worry about.

Sure, even if new models didn't happen I'd still be happy with my current kit - but I would be questioning the sanity in investing in further (expensive) glass for a brand which had no future.

As for comments regarding other manufacturers - as a newcomer to DSLRs I can't see the point in bodies without image stabilisation. In my opinion Pentax, Olympus, Sony and Minolta (from memory) are doing things 'the right way' and Canon/Nikon are tied to their legacy of expensive IS lenses.

To me, in-body IS (hence affordable lenses) and the K-mount are the major selling points. Weather sealing would be a nice bonus.

I'd upgrade my K-x for higher FPS, faster auto-focus, remote triggering of bracketing and more flexibility on long shutter times (for night/star-trail photography).

Steve

Steve,

Why exactly do you think Ricoh would buy a brand with no future?

What would be the business case?

Do you think perhaps that all the Ricoh directors had shares in Hoya, and thought it would be a good idea to boost Hoya at the expense of their own company?

Please advise. I am fascinated by your thought processes.

G

I agree 100% with George, Ricoh haven't bought Pentax just to lose money, and no there won't be a name change, though it makes you wonder how Sony DSLRs would be ranked today if they had kept the Minolta brand.

Sony are still living in the past, when their name was the most valuable brand in the world. They couldn't bring themselves to believe that keeping the Minolta name would be better than using their own.

G

George, your sarcasm betrays a lack of understanding of basic Japanese business customs.

In fact there are various plausible reasons why Ricoh might have acquired Pentax without the intention of running it for the long term, but I’m not going to elaborate on that and will instead give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, I am convinced that their commitment is contingent on turning around profitability in the medium term. Or do you think the directors of Ricoh are running a charity?

I'm not sure what good speculation does, but I guess it works all ways. If we reacted to every doom and gloom story on the internet we'd be afraid to buy anything in case in 20 years the company no longer existed.

It doesn't matter what happens, because it will happen regardless and something will come of it that we can use. My thought is that we might as well get on with shooting some pictures in the meantime.

I do realise that the above borders on sounding like Professor Pangloss, but it's not intended to be that extreme.

I think what Shaky was intimating was to market the fact that weather resistance is not only rain protection, but normal "sunny day" protection from dust, grit and accidents with spilling drinks at a party...

Correct design of the camera, missing an opportunity to market an edge over the competition.